Judge sets May 5 ruling on evidence in
Tripp case
Defense team seeks dismissal of charges
____________________________________________________
By Del Quentin Wilber
Sun Staff
A Howard County Circuit Court judge said yesterday that she will
rule by May 5 on what evidence, if any, state prosecutors can use in
their illegal-wiretapping case against Linda R. Tripp.
That announcement was made after a two-hour hearing in which
Tripp's lawyers attacked key witness Monica Lewinsky's credibility,
calling her a "liar," and asked Judge Diane O. Leasure to throw out
the case against their client.
State prosecutors defended their investigation, saying a small portion
of the evidence was tainted by Tripp's immunized testimony to
federal authorities investigating President Clinton in 1998. They are
asking Leasure to allow them to proceed to trial.
For the most part, yesterday's arguments rehashed ones filed with
Leasure, who said she would post her ruling on the Internet by 2
p.m. May 5.
Though yesterday's hearing did not generate the media interest of
past proceedings, it did lure Tripp's daughter Allison to the
courtroom. Standing before television cameras and reporters outside
the courthouse afterward, the 20-year-old said: "I'm just here for
support. I think [the arguments] went really well."
Tripp was indicted in July on two counts of violating Maryland's
wiretapping law. She is accused of tape recording a Dec. 22, 1997,
telephone conversation with Lewinsky and then having her attorney
disclose the contents of that recording to Newsweek magazine. That
tape recording and others made from Tripp's home in Columbia
revealed a sexual relationship between President Clinton and
Lewinsky, a former White House intern.
The tapes spurred an investigation by independent counsel Kenneth
W. Starr and led to Clinton's impeachment in December 1998.
Evidence gathering
The main issue in Tripp's prosecution involves how state prosecutors
gathered evidence and whether their witnesses were "tainted" by their
knowledge of Tripp's immunized testimony to Starr's investigators
and before a federal grand jury. The case has generated more than a
week of hearings on the immunity issue.
During yesterday's proceeding, Leasure directed most of her
questions toward Deputy Attorney General Carmen Shepard, who
argued the case on behalf of state prosecutors.
Leasure noted that Lewinsky's book, "Monica's Story," did not
mention the Newsweek story that included a transcript of the
tape-recorded Dec. 22 conversation.
Whether Lewinsky could recall the specific date of the conversation
is a major issue in the case. Tripp's lawyers contend that she
refreshed her memory based on information Tripp gave to federal
investigators, testimony that Lewinsky was able to review. That
review and recollection, they argue, "infect" the prosecution.
Tripp's lawyers contend that Lewinsky lied under oath in a
December hearing when she recalled a specific date of the recording
to seek revenge against their client.
State prosecutors said that one of Tripp's lawyers told Starr's
deputies about the date of the recording long before Tripp was given
official immunity. They also contend that they might not need to
prove the specific date to win a prosecution because of wording in
the indictment.
Lewinsky says that she can recall the specific date because of other
events taking place at the time, including her goodbye party from the
Pentagon and a subpoena issued to her in the Paula Jones' sexual
misconduct case against Clinton.
She testified in December before Leasure that the date "was etched
in my mind. It was a pretty frightening time for me."
Leasure also said it was "somewhat troubling" that no recorded
admonishments were issued to Howard County grand jurors about
reading accounts about Starr's report to Congress, which included
immunized testimony Tripp gave to federal investigators.
"To say there was a mild level of media activity would be an
understatement," Leasure said. "This case is somewhat unique in
terms of coverage."
Grand jury warnings
Tripp's lawyers have consistently criticized state prosecutors for not
taking more precautions to warn grand jurors to avoid news
accounts of Starr's report, especially when it was released in
September 1998. The grand jury did not meet for several months
during that period.
Shepard said that state prosecutors told grand jurors to consider
information presented to them in the courtroom and to ignore outside
news as they weighed whether to indict Tripp. She said evidence
clearly shows grand jurors did that.
Originally published on Mar 30 2000